Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
#1845222
patowalker wrote:
MattL wrote:The risk to individuals varies massively by their flying rate, location and flying role.


So you propose that Peter should pay to reduce Paul's risk, because Paul's flying role requires him to fly often, in busy airspace?


Yes

Paul is an air ambulance pilot. He has to fly Helimed 24 in some of the busiest airspace in the South of the U.K.

Paul is an air cadet instructor who gives hundreds of young people with limited chances in life their first taste of flight.

Paul is a military pilot doing essential U.K. training before overseas deployment on disaster relief.

Paul is a police helicopter pilot doing essential tasking in congested airspace.

If Peter wants to play his part in society he will happily pay a reasonable cost to help keep everyone safe.
Last edited by MattL on Wed May 05, 2021 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ls8pilot, gaznav, James Chan and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845228
rdfb wrote:
Pete L wrote:In terms of risk to life, GA is around 1 in 10^7 per hour and an airline passenger is around 1 in 10^9. CAT gets the benefit of both TCAS and ground surveillance.


I think you're misusing this statistic. It's accepted that MACs are far more likely in the vicinity of a busy aerodrome. What's the risk to my life, operating as I do from an aerodrome with a busy ATZ? Much higher than 10^7 per hour then, during that phase of flight. Because your 10^7 figure (assuming it's accurate) is being lowered by all of those operating from private farm strips.

If that means that those operating from private farm strips want mandatory EC to be limited to busy ATZs, I'd be fine with that. It'd still take most of the MAC risk away for me.


It may be accepted but the reality is collisions are too scattered to make that statement with any confidence. If anything I'd say you're most at risk at least 10nm from the nearest aerodrome in a training area or common honeypot. But my closest encounter to date was at least 25nm from any airport above 3000'.
#1845229
Subjectively MAC risk is higher for GA pilots that dont fly much.

When they do fly they are likely to have a higher workload doing the routine stuff so they have a reduced amount of time to look out for traffic and birds.

They are closer to task saturation so it does not take much of a distraction or some unexpected behaviour of a nav/com or other device to take them over the edge of brain power and they subconsciously stop listening.... so they likely wont hear the traffic warning from a radar operator over the radio, or the audio alert from a traffic warning device.

We can all speculate how many flying hours or number of flights a year is needed to not be in that category of pilot. It is not always due to personal finances.

It does seem reasonable that the more often we fly the less brain power is needed for the routine stuff, leaving greater capacity to look out for traffic and birds, hear the traffic warning from a radar operator, hear the audio alert from a traffic warning device.

The flip side is the more we fly the more we expose ourselves to the risk of MAC (some of which can be mitigated by thinking more carefully pre-flight about route selection and transit altitudes/heights).


There is an analogy with motorcycling....

From an insurance perspective there is (or used to be) a sweet spot of lowest risk of collision/loss of control.
(1) If do not ride enough, the machine control might be a bit ropey so needs more concentration and more likely to make handling errors and easier to misjudge a corner or an overtake or not anticipate what other traffic and people and animals are doing.
(2) If ride "enough" miles, the machine control is up to its normal standard for that rider so they are less likely to make machine control errors and have more capacity for observing what is going on around them so less startle factors and their consequences.
(3) If ride too much, then the risk goes up through greater exposure to having an accident with that subset of drivers that are (a) half asleep that end up on the wrong side of the road or doing erratic/abrupt manoeuvres if they just missed their turning, or (b) the subset of really dangerous car drivers that are very impatient, tailgating, trying to queue jump everywhere, chopping and changing lanes without looking/caring, jump traffic lights, and not giving way at junctions/roundabouts... that are possibly not insured and on false/stolen car registration plates so not bothered by traffic cameras.
A rider in the last group has more road time exposure to having wildlife such as a deer run into/across the road in front of them... it appeared suddenly out of nowhere.... and a collision occurred or was narrowly avoided (assisted by having fresh/higher standard of machine control).


Fresh, competent and confident handling skills of the ground/airborne vehicle being operated will always help avoid collisions with the terrain, wildlife, people and man-made ground/airborne objects. The biggest driver of aviation costs is the very high price of new aircraft and fuel. Reduce those and cash strapped pilots can fly more often and there will be a higher turnover of new aircraft sales (and less 20+ year old PA28s and C152/172s) and new aircraft can (optionally) come factory fitted with the latest "must have" gizmos at a certifiable standard acceptable to the various international aviation Authorities.
#1845234
I hesitate to add to the huge noise being generated here, but there is something bothering me. It’s the idea that EC is the key to sharing airspace with UAVs/drones?

I’m afraid I don’t see it that way at all!

IMV people have an unfortunate tendency to conflate ‘conspicuity’ systems with ‘collision avoidance’ systems. Here’s an example:

If drones are as unpredictable in their pathways as GA, then they have to be able to see and avoid so a drone equivalent to TCAS is needed and all GA will have to output something they can process.


Now let’s start from basics here. I’m expecting a fair proportion of UAV’s to be considerably smaller than a GA aircraft. I have no idea of their likely speeds, but even if they are highlighted to me electronically I’m unsure as to how easy it will be to see them until it’s rather late? I will of course be equally unsure as to whether they are about to alter their trajectory, so manoeuvring ‘blind’ might be seen as a bit of a punt?

Equally, the conspicuity of others is of no use whatsoever in the drone. It’s pointless making anything ‘conspicuous’ to the microchip unless you also give it the tools to avoid. So here’s where that leads us:

“ they have to be able to see and avoid so a drone equivalent to TCAS is needed.”

But for someone to develop a “drone equivalent to TCAS” would I suspect take a humongous investment. All whilst there already IS a drone equivalent to TCAS. We call it TCAS! It’s transponder based, and you can take it from me it’s very, very, very clever. It’s also very fast!

The (non transponder) forms of EC being discussed here are not the answer to GA and UAVs mixing in the same airspace. AIMVHO.

Oh, just to add, nor do I use LARS purely for deconfliction and weathers! So I don’t see EC/ADSB as a replacement for LARS either. But that’s probably just me?! :lol:
#1845240
Pete L wrote:It may be accepted but the reality is collisions are too scattered to make that statement with any confidence. If anything I'd say you're most at risk at least 10nm from the nearest aerodrome in a training area or common honeypot. But my closest encounter to date was at least 25nm from any airport above 3000'.


Training areas is a good point. I would suggest many GA pilots are only aware of the training areas for the flying school(s) they have used. Training areas are generally not depicted on the half mil chart (perhaps because there would be too many complaints about another area to avoid or the charts would be too cluttered?).

Similarly the majority of farm strip or private strips are not on the half mil chart, and some pilots that like to go cross country at low level to avoid the 1500 ft, 2000 ft and 2500 ft round number altitude honey pots... could inadvertently transit through the circuit/overhead of an unmarked airstrip when flying across unfamiliar territory if they get distracted.
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845242
It could be quite fun, if the sense and avoid separation distance is big enough.

The EC age equivalent to ‘breakfast patrol’, where two or three of you electronically ‘corner’ a drone and force it to land as its only way of avoiding you.
#1845248
patowalker wrote:Paul chose to accept the risk, which should be reflected in his pay grade. Peter should not be obliged to equip his aircraft to mitigate a statistically insignificant risk to himself.


Wow, well it’s certainly a view. I suspect Peter is going to be disappointed at which way the world is going to go over the next few years.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845274
Shoestring Flyer wrote:
Ian Melville wrote:Not seen any mention of the technical limitations of ADSB on 1090Mhz?


The Goodwood trial drones are going to be using 978Mhz!..
So no-one will be able to 'see' them! :evil:


I am no longer directly involved but I don’t believe that is true. The use of 978 MHz in the Goodwood trial relates to the transmission of FIS-B, TIS-B and ADS-B Obstacle Beacons in support of the trial.

The U.K. has elected to adopt a dual frequency ADS-B strategy utilising both 1090 and 978 but has not yet concluded the utilisation of what services on each frequency.

The trial at Goodwood is designed to evaluate and report on a number of concepts related to frequency utilisation, rebroadcast and integration.

A vast range of UAT capable (dual frequency) receiving devices are already available worldwide (including SkyEcho) which should mean that so long as the U.K. stick with ICAO protocols for the use of these frequencies that the type of integration and services being considered in the Goodwood Trial will be easily receivable ‘out of the box’.

PS if I were a betting man, I think some BVLOS drones will end up utilising 978 MHZ as a method of spectrum management incorporating that growing sector.
#1845282
A4 Pacific wrote:I hesitate to add to the huge noise being generated here, but there is something bothering me. It’s the idea that EC is the key to sharing airspace with UAVs/drones?

I’m afraid I don’t see it that way at all!

IMV people have an unfortunate tendency to conflate ‘conspicuity’ systems with ‘collision avoidance’ systems. Here’s an example:

If drones are as unpredictable in their pathways as GA, then they have to be able to see and avoid so a drone equivalent to TCAS is needed and all GA will have to output something they can process.


Now let’s start from basics here. I’m expecting a fair proportion of UAV’s to be considerably smaller than a GA aircraft. I have no idea of their likely speeds, but even if they are highlighted to me electronically I’m unsure as to how easy it will be to see them until it’s rather late? I will of course be equally unsure as to whether they are about to alter their trajectory, so manoeuvring ‘blind’ might be seen as a bit of a punt?

Equally, the conspicuity of others is of no use whatsoever in the drone. It’s pointless making anything ‘conspicuous’ to the microchip unless you also give it the tools to avoid. So here’s where that leads us:

“ they have to be able to see and avoid so a drone equivalent to TCAS is needed.”

But for someone to develop a “drone equivalent to TCAS” would I suspect take a humongous investment. All whilst there already IS a drone equivalent to TCAS. We call it TCAS! It’s transponder based, and you can take it from me it’s very, very, very clever. It’s also very fast!

The (non transponder) forms of EC being discussed here are not the answer to GA and UAVs mixing in the same airspace. AIMVHO.

Oh, just to add, nor do I use LARS purely for deconfliction and weathers! So I don’t see EC/ADSB as a replacement for LARS either. But that’s probably just me?! :lol:


AFAIK "detect and avoid" software for the Drone is already available and under trial (mentioned in the Snowdon Drone Zone ACP). As you rightly say EC depends on you getting visual contact on the target (prompted by the warning), which you will not do for a Drone, so the logic has to be that the Drone avoids the larger aircraft.

Don't see traditional TCAS scaling down to Gliders, Microlights and paragliders, ADSB emitters seem a feasible technology and give very accurate position information - the issues about antenna attenuation are easily solved with a Mk3 device, and as has been pointed out (based on Flarm experience) the effect will be to reduce the range, not obliterate the signal entirely,
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845289
I think collision avoidance systems for drones will be important and are out there, being trialled. However, successful integration of BVLOS drones into in un-segregated Class G will hinge on the drone pilot being capable of operating the drone as though it was any other VFR aircraft, excepting the obvious, difference that her/his compliance with ICAO Rules of the Air and See and Avoid will be achieved by sense and avoid, in an electronically conspicuous environment.

This will require the drone pilot to have similar skills and knowledge to the IFR GA pilot as well as being able to assimilate a situational awareness display for deconfliction.

IME a number of the current BVLOS operators have only ever contemplated operating within an airspace segregation where the only thing they are likely to hit is the ground or a land based obstruction. The airframes generally perform on preprogrammed routes with little capability for manual intervention. This situation needs to change to possibly contemplate safe integration with other operations in Class G and is the achievable challenge facing facing potential BVLOS operators.
Last edited by Cub on Thu May 06, 2021 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1845294
Pete L wrote:It may be accepted but the reality is collisions are too scattered to make that statement with any confidence. If anything I'd say you're most at risk at least 10nm from the nearest aerodrome in a training area or common honeypot. But my closest encounter to date was at least 25nm from any airport above 3000'.


I was under the impression that a (statistically) significant number of actual MACs have occurred near aerodromes, and are statistically rare away from aerodromes. Do you not share this impression?

Edit: it makes sense too, given that MACs are random events and if you consider the relative differences in traffic density in different areas of airspace.
#1845304
Cub wrote:
Shoestring Flyer wrote:
Ian Melville wrote:Not seen any mention of the technical limitations of ADSB on 1090Mhz?


The Goodwood trial drones are going to be using 978Mhz!..
So no-one will be able to 'see' them! :evil:


I am no longer directly involved but I don’t believe that is true.


I only hope that you are correct? I would stand corrected if that is so.
I only know what I have read and heard and the only frequency mentioned is 978Mhz which doesn't seem logical me.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10